Hi, > On 4 Oct 2017, at 13:25, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 10/2/2017 7:57 AM, R. Atkinson wrote: >> All, >> >> 1. My guess is that most folks agree with the principle of not undertaking new IPv4-only work. > > I, for one, do not. > > There may be a time when we can deprecate IPv4 this way, but that time > has not arrived. > > IPv4 remains in very active use and there are plenty of ways in which > new IPv4-related work could be important beyond the specific areas of > security, transitioning, or decommissioning. > > While I agree that new IPv4 work should not be the focus of the IETF, > it's entirely possible that new work ion other protocols will be need to > support *both* IPv4 and IPv6 (without direct involvement in > transitioning) or that there will be IPv4-specific enhancements that are > useful beyond the limited areas above. > > I see no good reason for the proclamations in > draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf, and I agree with Ran's assessment below of > the quality of this doc. Perhaps we should be creating a 4man WG, for “IPv4 Maintenance”... Tim > (continued from Ran:) >> Discussion: >> ———————— >> >> The particular I-D (draft-ietf-sunset-4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt) is not sufficiently clearly written, >> if it is trying to achieve either of the objectives (1-3) above. I think many folks would like >> to see at least both the title and abstract re-worked, probably the whole draft reworked, >> to make it more clear that the objective is to discontinue most IETF IPv4-only work. >> Certainly, I would want the title, the abstract, and the rest of the document to be edited >> to have a consistent, clear, and non-inflammatory message consistent with (1-3) above. >> >> I have to agree with Stephen Farrell that the best we can hope for in this are is to avoid >> “most” IPv4-only work, on grounds that if a major issue (e.g., security) arose in some >> IPv4-specific specification, then the IETF ought to address/resolve that IPv4-unique issue. >> >> However, if the IETF tries to take a hard line that no new IPv4 work is allowed, then the >> practical result will be that some other standards body will simply do IPv4-unique work >> outside the IETF (in practice; de facto) — which would be a very bad outcome, both for >> interoperability and for global standards cooperation. >> >> Yours, >> >> Ran >> >